With the 2010 elections over, its time to give the 2012 Presidential its own thread. We kick it off with some reflections from Peggy Noonan:

All eyes have been on Capitol Hill, but let's take a look at the early stages of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

This week the papers have been full of sightings—Newt and Huckabee are in Iowa, Pawlenty's in New Hampshire. But maybe the more interesting story is that a lot of potential candidates will decide if they are definitely going to run between now and New Year's—and some of them will be deciding over Thanksgiving weekend. It's all happening now, they're deciding in long walks, at the dinner table, and while watching the football game on the couch. They'll be talking it through, sometimes for the first time and sometimes the tenth. "Can we do this?" "Are we in this together?" "How do you feel?"

In some cases those will be hard conversations. A largely unremarked fact of modern presidential politics is the increased and wholly understandable reluctance of candidates' families to agree to a run. Looking at it through a purely personal prism, and that's where most people start, they see it not as a sacrifice, which it is, but a burden, a life-distorter, and it is those things too. But they have to agree to enter Big History, or a candidate can't go. And a lot of them don't want the job, if victory follows candidacy, of "the president's family." The stakes are too high, the era too dramatic, the life too intense. They don't want the intrusion, the end of all privacy, the fact that you're always on, always representing.

A president's spouse gets mass adulation one week and mass derision the next. But if you're a normal person you probably never wanted mass adulation or mass derision.

So what's happening now in the homes of some political figures is big and in some cases will be decisive. Potential candidates already have been approached by and met with campaign consultants, gurus looking for a gig telling them "Don't worry about all the travel, you can have a Facebook campaign, we'll make you the first I-pad candidate! You can keep your day job. You can even work your day job!" And then there are the potential contributors, the hedge fund libertarian in Greenwich, and the conservative millionaire in a Dallas suburb, who are raring to go. Candidates have to decide by at least New Year's in order to be able to tell them to stay close and keep their powder dry, and in order to plan an announcement in the spring, in time for the first big GOP debate, at the Reagan Library.

Some candidates and their families are not wrestling with the idea of running, of course. Mitt Romney, for instance, surely knows he's running. But not every potential candidate is serious about it. Some look like they're letting the possibility they'll run dangle out there because it keeps them relevant, keeps the cameras nearby, keeps their speech fees and book advances up. The one thing political journalists know and have learned the past few decades is that anyone can become president. So if you say you may run you are immediately going to get richer and more well known and treated with more respect by journalists. Another reason unlikely candidates act like they're running is that who knows, they may. It's hard to decide not to. It excites them to think they might. It helps them get up that morning and go to the 7 a.m. breakfast. "I'm not doing this for nothing, I may actually run. The people at the breakfast may hug me at my inauguration; I may modestly whisper, 'Remember that breakfast in Iowa when nobody showed? But you did. You're the reason I'm here.'" They're not horrible, they're just human. But history is serious right now, and it seems abusive to fake it. If you know in your heart you're not going to run you probably shouldn't jerk people around. This is history, after all.

View Full Image

Chad Crowe .More Peggy NoonanRead Peggy Noonan's previous columns

click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace .All this decision making takes place within the context of a new mood in the party. We are at the beginning of what looks like a conservative renaissance, free of the past and back to basics. It is a revived conservatism restored to a sense of mission.

The broader context is this: Every four years we say, 'This is a crucial election,' and every four years it's more or less true. But 2012 will seem truer than most. I suspect it will be, like 1980, a year that feels like a question: Will America turn itself around or not? Will it go in a dramatically new direction, or not.

And if there are new directions to be taken, it's probably true that only a president, in the end, can definitively lead in that new direction. On spending, for instance, which is just one issue, it's probably true that the new Congress will wrestle with cuts and limits and new approaches, and plenty of progress is possible, and big issues faced. But at the end of the day it will likely take a president to summon and gather the faith and trust of the people, and harness the national will. It's probably true that only a president can ask everyone to act together, to trust each other, even, and to accept limits together in pursuit of a larger good.

Right now, at this moment, it looks like the next Republican nominee for president will probably be elected president. Everyone knows a rising tide when they see one. But everything changes, and nothing is sure. President Obama's poll numbers seem to be inching up, and there's reason to guess or argue that he hit bottom the week after the election and has nowhere to go but up.

Most of my life we've lived in a pretty much fifty-fifty nation, with each cycle decided by where the center goes. Mr. Obama won only two years ago by 9.5 million votes. That's a lot of votes. His supporters may be disheartened and depressed, but they haven't disappeared. They'll show up for a presidential race, especially if the Republicans do not learn one of the great lessons of 2010: The center has to embrace the conservative; if it doesn't, the conservative loses. Add to that the fact that the White House is actually full of talented people, and though they haven't proved good at governing they did prove good not long ago at campaigning. It's their gift. It's ignored at the GOP's peril.

All of this means that for Republicans, the choice of presidential nominee will demand an unusual level of sobriety and due diligence from everyone in the party, from primary voters in Iowa to county chairmen in South Carolina, and from party hacks in Washington to tea party powers in the Rust Belt. They are going to have to approach 2012 with more than the usual seriousness. They'll have to think big, and not indulge resentments or anger or petty grievances. They'll have to be cool eyed. They'll have to watch and observe the dozen candidates expected to emerge, and ask big questions.

Who can lead? Who can persuade the center? Who can summon the best from people? Who will seem credible (as a person who leads must)? Whose philosophy is both sound and discernible? Who has the intellectual heft? Who has the experience? Who seems capable of wisdom? These are serious questions, but 2012 is going to be a serious race.

Good luck to those families having their meetings and deliberations on Thanksgiving weekend.

Nice discussion on the Palin thread. As we look for the next Reagan keep in mind there isn't one. We need to pick from this current group and maybe a handful of names we haven't thought of yet. Reagan for one thing was a two term governor of our largest state and was long outspoken on national and international issues. The executive experience brought him some credibility. For those who didn't care about that it also brought with him the experience and skill to manage a staff, stay focused on priorities and to campaign and govern effectively. Reagan annoyed the left as much as Palin but also stole from the Democrats and independents their more moderate members. Palin is not having that affect.

Since we aren't working with a perfect list, I don't count her out, but I certainly move her down from the 'A' list for those things already mentioned, she left her highest post midterm first term, and she annoys people like Crafty's wife and CCP both of whom I think we need to win. On the positive side, I think I can live just fine with all of her agenda, governing philosophy and positions on issues as it stands today. As Crafty hinted regarding her experience with energy, she was the most powerful woman in Alaska before she was governor and energy is still a central issue.

Who else is still on the 'A' list, Gingrich, Romney and Huckabee? I object to each for different reasons so none is my first choice. Gingrich is quite an idea guy and he certainly is well qualified as a past Speaker of the House. The personal stuff I think is his main political downfall. Like a Rove, he needs to be used for his wisdom, ideas and instincts but not be the candidate.

Romney has sufficient credentials to run and win including private sector successes and being governor of a blue state but got there by being inconsistent with principles and stands on issues. He projects himself as Presidential I think most people agree, and that is rare. But how can we take advantage of the political energy that comes from resistance to a government takeover of healthcare and then choose someone whose greatest accomplishment is something similar? Romney has veered back and forth on principle and issues a bit too much to ever be a Reagan-like leader. Yet maybe he can emerge as one who has erred and learned.

Huckabee is not my cup of tea either. I haven't seen him lately but he wasn't very conservative in his postions or governance yet close enough in most people's minds to be seen as the Christian-right and to alienate all who get alienated by that. His embrace of the Fair Tax was opportunistic IMO. Apologies to those here who disagree with me, but we aren't going to be repealing all other taxes at this point in history so now as we struggle to close the deficit is a very bad time to even mention the another potential layer of federal taxation.

That leaves a handful of not too well-known governors without foreign policy experience and a few others from congress or ambassadorship without executive experience. One of these needs to emerge as Presidential in a very short order.

The timing is bad for Republicans. Everyone is either tied to Bush or lacks experience in the executive branch. If we had 4 more years, there is a great group of conservative politicians coming up through the ranks. But we don't have 4 more years.

Right now I will keep my eye on people like Mike Pence and Ambassador Bolton. They are both acceptable to me, in both cases not quite enough experience, and we will see how others respond to them.

People might start getting to know the other second and third tier candidates like our Governor Tim Pawlenty. He won two terms in a blue state including the sweep election of 2006. He balanced a budget 8 times (really 4 biennium budgets) without raising state taxes, while working with (against) a 60+% Democrat majority legislature. He came in with a deficit, left with a surplus. He is conservative without coming across as extreme or threatening. (His wife is an attractive lady and a judge.) He is personable and sharp, can probably small talk with Katie Couric just fine. He is soft spoken mostly and doesn't make a big splash or impression. Not a Reagan in clout, clarity or by any other means. Maybe more like a Bobby Jindal who I also like. Pawlenty's google hit rate, as pointed out in the original Palin piece, is 1/87th that of Palin even though he has been traveling regularly to Iowa, New Hampshire and appearing on the national shows.

Certainly POTH is highly unreliable source, especially with regard to racially-tinged issues, but I must confess that it irks me how many Republicans seem to have a tin ear or worse on some of the history of the civil rights movement.===========================

Gov. Barbour’s Dream WorldPublished: December 21, 2010

In Gov. Haley Barbour’s hazy, dream-coated South, the civil-rights era was an easy transition for his Mississippi hometown of Yazoo City. As he told the Weekly Standard recently, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an unmemorable speaker, and notorious White Citizens Councils protected the world from violent racists.

Perhaps Mr. Barbour, one of the most powerful men in the Republican Party and a potential presidential candidate, suffers from the faulty memory all too common among those who stood on the sidelines during one of the greatest social upheavals in history. It is more likely, though, that his recent remarks on the period fit a well-established pattern of racial insensitivity that raises increasing doubts about his fitness for national office.

In the magazine’s profile of the second-term governor, Mr. Barbour suggests that the 1960s — when people lost life and limb battling for equal rights for black citizens — were not a terribly big deal in Yazoo City. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he said. He heard Dr. King speak at the county fairgrounds in 1962 but can’t remember the speech. “We just sat on our cars, watching the girls, talking, doing what boys do,” he said. “We paid more attention to the girls than to King.”

And the Citizens Councils were simply right-minded business leaders trying to achieve integration without violence. Thanks to the councils, he said, “we didn’t have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.”

The councils, of course, arose in the South for a single and sinister purpose: to fight federal attempts at integration and to maintain the supremacy of white leaders in cities and states. Mississippi’s council, formed in reaction to the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, was one of the most powerful political forces in the state, and later raised funds for the defense of the murderer of Medgar Evers. The council chapter in Yazoo City, so fondly remembered by Mr. Barbour, published the names of N.A.A.C.P. leaders who dared to demand the town’s schools be integrated in 1955. Those on the list systematically lost their jobs and their livelihoods, boycotted by white citizens.

Mr. Barbour hastily issued a statement on Tuesday describing the councils as “indefensible” and the era as “difficult and painful.” But this is the same man who in 1982 made an indefensible remark to an aide who complained that there would be “coons” at a campaign stop. If the aide persisted in racist remarks, Mr. Barbour said, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks. His campaign for the governor’s office was also racially tinged.

Memory has long been the mutable clay of the South, changing the meaning of the Civil War and now the civil-rights era. But the memory of Mr. Barbour’s personal history will not soon fade. That should give pause to the Republican Party as it considers his future.

Krauthammer has started a new fad. Blessed are the liberals to have a conservative lead the charge praising Obama. Of course they pick up the fumble and are heading for the endzne with it. See Estrich's column after Krauthammer. Sound familiar. Thanks Charles with you on our side why do we need liberals? I just don't see that there was any genius on Obama's part. Someone said they give Obama more credit than Congress for DADT and START and the rest. Why? In any case as long as we have a MSM that is so biased the Republicans have to do better at PR.

****Obama's new start

By Charles KrauthammerThursday, December 23, 2010; 8:00 PM

Riding the lamest of ducks, President Obama just won the Triple Crown. He fulfilled (1) his most important economic priority, passage of Stimulus II, a.k.a. the tax cut deal (the perfect pre-re-election fiscal sugar high - the piper gets paid in 2013 and beyond); (2) his most important social policy objective, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"; and (3) his most cherished (achievable) foreign policy goal, ratification of the New START treaty with Russia.

Politically, these are all synergistic. The bipartisan nature of the tax deal instantly repositioned Obama back to the center. And just when conventional wisdom decided the deal had caused irreparable alienation from his liberal base, Obama almost immediately won it back - by delivering one of the gay rights movement's most elusive and coveted breakthroughs.

The symbolism of the don't ask, don't tell repeal cannot be underestimated. It's not just that for the civil rights community, it represents a long-awaited extension of the historic arc - first blacks, then women, now gays. It was also Obama decisively transcending the triangulated trimming of Bill Clinton, who instituted don't ask, don't tell in the first place. Even more subtly and understatedly, the repeal represents the taming of the most conservative of the nation's institutions, the military, by a movement historically among the most avant-garde. Whatever your views, that is a cultural landmark.

Then came START, which was important for Obama not just because of the dearth of foreign policy achievements these past two years but because treaties, especially grand-sounding treaties on strategic arms, carry the aura of presidential authority and diplomatic mastery.

No matter how useless they are, or even how damaging. New START was significantly, if subtly, damaging, which made the rear-guard Republican opposition it engendered so salutary. The debate it sparked garnered the treaty more attention than it would have otherwise and thus gave Obama a larger PR victory. But that debate also amplified the major flaw in the treaty - the gratuitous reestablishment of the link between offensive and defensive weaponry.

One of the great achievements of the past decade was the Bush administration's severing of that link - first, by its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which had expressly prevented major advances in missile defense, and then with the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, which regulated offensive weapons but ostentatiously contained not a single word about any connection to missile defense. Why is this important? Because missile defense is essential for protecting ourselves from the most menacing threat of the coming century - nuclear hyper-proliferation.

The relinking that we acquiesced to in the preamble to New START is a major reversal of that achievement. Sure, Obama sought to reassure critics with his letter to the Senate promising unimpeded development of our European missile defense system. But the Russians have already watched this president cancel our painstakingly planned Polish and Czech missile defenses in response to Russian protests and threats. That's why they insisted we formally acknowledge an "interrelationship" between offense and defense. They know that their threat to withdraw from START, if the United States were to build defenses that displease them, will inevitably color - and restrain - future U.S. missile defense advances and deployments.

Obama's difficulty in overcoming the missile defense objection will serve to temper the rest of his nuclear agenda, including U.S. entry into the test-ban treaty, and place Obama's ultimate goal of total nuclear disarmament blessedly out of reach. Conservatives can thus take solace that their vigorous opposition to START is likely to prevent further disarmament mischief down the road. But what they cannot deny is the political boost the treaty's ratification gives Obama today, a mere seven weeks after his Election Day debacle.

The great liberal ascendancy of 2008, destined to last 40 years (predicted James Carville), lasted less than two. Yet, the great Republican ascendancy of 2010 lasted less than two months. Republicans will enter the 112th Congress with larger numbers but no longer with the wind - the overwhelming Nov. 2 repudiation of Obama's social-democratic agenda - at their backs.

"Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, lamenting his side's "capitulation" in the lame-duck session. Yes, but it was less Harry than Barry. Obama came back with a vengeance. His string of lame-duck successes is a singular political achievement. Because of it, the epic battles of the 112th Congress begin on what would have seemed impossible just one month ago - a level playing field.

****Susan Estrich Obama the Genius

Was it only a month ago that the chattering class was writing off the president as being almost as thoroughly defeated as the lame duck Congress, as the failed leader who had lost his way, popularity plummeting, accomplishments vulnerable? Insiders worried about who was up next. How much worse could it get? Did he really want to be a one-term president? Any Republican could beat him, friend and foe asserted. (Well, maybe not any Republican, but almost any). And then, like the weather in New England, everything changed.

In politics, the distance between idiot and genius, especially at the highest levels, can be measured in days.

In the past 30, this president has put in place a tax deal that also extends unemployment benefits - and made clear to House Democrats that they could like it or lump it. He pushed to a vote a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, signed into law the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and even got some judges confirmed. That's just off the top of my head.

Even without Rahm, it turns out the president knows his way around tough negotiations and games of chicken, not only forging a compromise but landing himself squarely in the middle. "Triangulation" minus Dick Morris. He has been decisive, tough and confident. When House Democrats revolted, he stood up to them and told them what was what. The once unified Republican bloc splintered. He found the votes he needed. The issue that threatened the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency — gays in the military — was resolved with the stroke of a pen.

Who is this genius?

Who is this natural-born leader?

None other than last month's beaten man. The man we would wish were president if only he weren't.

Hillary has probably never been more popular. (Sometimes I wonder how she ever lost the nomination what with all the folks who now claim they were for her and were right, to boot. But then, I can remember when public opinion polls during Watergate showed that McGovern must have beaten Nixon.)

It's easy to read the daily polls and see the entire public as a fickle lot constantly racing in one direction or another, radiating anger as they do. But the reality is that it's mostly the middle that's swinging, if and when they pay attention. And that middle — the group that either likes Obama no matter what he does or doesn't like him, on the same terms — is mostly in the ideological middle, not to mention, by definition, nonpartisan.

So when the president acts in a nonpartisan way, when he forces a compromise that keeps the tax cuts for everyone and extends unemployment benefits for folks who really can't find work (even if our grandkids will pay for it) and ends the bickering and backstabbing and intolerable paralysis, those folks are more likely to swing in his direction.

And when Republicans like Susan Collins are willing to be in the picture, when the aisle doesn't bind, he gets points with people who are sick and tired of what mostly sounds, from a distance, like bickering bullies. And even if folks don't see all of it themselves, all the chattering about the president being back on top shapes the coverage and ultimately tends to nudge them in that direction.

And so Barack Obama ends the year not vanquished but firmly at the head of the table, which isn't bad for a guy who last month was taking heat from every direction.

He's on his way up. Mark my words. He's a genius — until, that is, the weather changes.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Posting about Tim Pawlenty on the assumption that all of the 1st tier candidates are defective, including Obama. Romney - Health care, Newt - personal past, Palin - being Palin, Huckabee - longer story but I don't favor him.

Also on the assumption that we need someone with executive experience of some meaning, we don't have a governor from NY or Calif available, Texas - don't know. Takes us into the middle size states for some level of relevant executive experience. Carter was from Georgia, Clinton Arkansas, Dukakis - Mass, etc.

Tim Pawlenty won in Dem state twice, even in the storm of 2006. Governed with good popularity without selling out conservatism too badly. Handled a few challenges like closing budget gaps without raising taxes and catastrophe of the bridge collapse. Was a minority leader of the state House prior to Gov. Mentioned here for underwhelming people, but again making the rounds where he has quite a bit of experience and is gaining familiarity. Likable, common sense guy, sticks to his principles, very non-threatening to moderates and independents. Not a Martin Luther King of orators, but his political savvy and skills are very good and easily underrated. Kind of the opposite of the vocal right that is so hated but without a major distinction in policies. Less polarizing. Pawlenty was probably McCain's correct choice and adviser's first choice. May very well be VP choice in '12 if he never comes up from 2nd tier for top of the ticket.

Unlike the recent works published by his potential competitors for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Tim Pawlenty's "Courage to Stand" is notable for its overt humility and avoidance of sweeping statements that might be perceived as hyperbolic.

The former Minnesota governor's attempt at a pre-presidential campaign tome is similar to those penned by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in that it is part biography, part vindication of his own political record, and part policy prescription for America's future. But he spills more ink describing specific examples of his leadership as chief executive of his state while taking a more humble approach.

It's not that Pawlenty is particularly shy about touting his accomplishments. It is instead a matter of tone. As the low-key Minnesotan puts it on page 97, "Because of human frailty, it's important that leaders avoid the temptation to be self-righteous. Confidence and strength are one thing; a false notion of personal perfection is another."

Pawlenty has been positioning himself as the "anti-Romney" in the nascent race by touting his blue-collar background as the son of a businessman in contrast to the wealth and privilege that Romney was born into, and that theme shines through in "Courage to Stand."

Although the author repeatedly touts his social and economic conservative bona fides, it is Pawlenty's accommodation and humility that permeates the book. "Today, two lightning-rod issues associated with social policy are abortion and gay marriage," Pawlenty writes. "I'm pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage, but when I talk about these issues, I watch my tone."

And in a sentence that could be perceived as a not-so-subtle jab at the tenor of Romney's book, "No Apology", Pawlenty writes, "Sometimes an apology is itself a sign of strength."

But at least as pronounced as the contrasts with Romney's work are the differences between Pawlenty's book and Palin's 2009 No. 1 bestseller, "Going Rogue."

While Palin writes about her triumphant exploits as a starting guard on her state championship high school basketball team, Pawlenty seems unashamed to note that he never made it past the junior varsity level in hockey - yet he still exudes passion for the sport.

While Palin's book portrays a take-no-prisoners approach to politics, in which the former small-town mayor takes on the old bulls to defeat an incumbent Republican for the governorship, Pawlenty writes about how his career ambition was to become a dentist when he enrolled at the University of Minnesota. Later on, he opted not to run for the Senate race he intended to pursue in 2002 after getting a phone call from Vice President Cheney asking him to defer to Norm Coleman for the good of the GOP.

"Going Rogue" is replete with rampant score settling with former staff members and political adversaries, whom Palin almost portrays as modern-day Dickensian villains, while "Courage to Stand" has scarcely a negative word about anyone and praises Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to John Mellencamp.

It's clear that Pawlenty strives to be perceived as genuine and relatable, and he would rather accept being labeled "boring" than risk becoming polarizing or accused of political posturing.

Perhaps more important is that the 50-year-old provides dozens of specific examples from his government experience thus far to cast himself as ready for the next office - and that will be a major theme in his likely presidential campaign in contrast to some of the front-runners, like Palin and Romney.

Romney's first book, "Turnaround" - published in 2004 - is a 384-page case study about his leadership of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He presents his many challenges and how he approached them, the national security aspect of the event and the funding and budgeting associated with the Olympics. A six-page epilogue discusses his ascension to the Massachusetts governorship. His second book in 2010 is devoted mostly to his national platform and largely glosses over his record in his one term as governor, as he chooses instead to sharply critique President Obama's performance.

Pawlenty's book, by contrast, pulls out a few examples of record-setting tax cuts and how he achieved them, as well as his handling of a nine-day government shutdown over a budget battle in 2005.

He also discusses his trade missions to China, which could prove to be a critical issue in 2012 - particularly with the likes of Romney and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels potentially in the race.

And in a three-page passage deep into the part of the book that delves into his gubernatorial record, Palwenty walks through how he navigated a $1.6 billion deal with Essar Steel, a major corporation based in India that hoped to develop a manufacturing plant in Minnesota's Iron Range. Upon learning that the company was doing business with a plant in Iran, Pawlenty forced a choice on the company, showing how he prioritizes security matters with economic development and how he may approach diplomacy.

There's also a chapter devoted to the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis and his response to the tragedy. Pawlenty takes the time to point out that a Democrat in the state called one of his staffers during the first few hours of emergency response to say how he was going to use the disaster to denigrate the governor. Pawlenty, who refuses to name the Democrat "because what he did was so awful," calls it "one of the most disgusting examples of low politicking I've seen in my entire career."

He even exposes his doubts about running for a second term and his decision to ignore the advice of political consultants about going negative toward the end of his re-election race. And he artfully handles how his education in "Minnesota Nice" crept into his line of work.

But can Pawlenty's nice-guy Midwesterner image work in today's hot-button political culture? In an appearance on "The View" on Tuesday, Pawlenty turned to the most frequently referenced conservative president of the modern era to make his case.

"People shouldn't confuse being nice or thoughtful or civil with being strong," Pawlenty said before dropping Ronald Reagan's name. "He had strong views, but he presented himself in a civil, thoughtful, decent, kind manner. There were almost no instances where Ronald Reagan yelled, screamed, judged, condemned."

Supporters are as exhausted as Velma Hart, the Tea Party has momentum, and Republicans are now more trusted. Mark McKinnon on why those issues, plus nine others, spell doom for the president’s reelection hopes.

President Obama’s State of the Union was strongly bipartisan and made smart moves to the center, although it missed a chance to really tackle tough fiscal issues like meaningful entitlement reforms. His Arizona speechwas terrific, his favorable ratings are climbing over 50, the economy is showing steady signs of improvement, and the stock market is up. So, how could he possibly lose his reelection bid? Just ask George H.W. Bush, who had an approval rating of nearly 90 percent two years out from his reelection. $#&! happens when you are at the helm of the free world. What could happen? Let us count the ways...

1. Velma Hart Syndrome

Many of Barack Obama’s supporters “are exhausted.” Many defected in the midterms. Independents, suburban residents, college graduates, working-class voters, and even Hispanic voters shifted right. Exit poll analysis by National Journal shows “white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance.” Team Obama will focus heavily on minorities, the young, and women, but voter enthusiasm may be tempered by economic exhaustion. Good news for Team O? Velma liked the speech Tuesday night.

2. The Obama Overexposure Effect

With counsel that he needs to get out more among the people to sell his message, voters may be turned off by the Obama Overexposure Effect. A Pew 2008 weekly survey showed, by a margin of 76 percent to 11 percent, respondents named Obama over Sen. John McCain as the candidate they heard about the most. Close to half said they heard too much about Obama. And by a slight but statistically significant margin, they then had a less favorable view of him. Before the 2012 campaign even kicks off, will Obama fatigue return?

3. Debt Bomb

The national debt reached $10 trillion under President Bush, but deficit spending is at an all-time high under President Obama, with $1.4 trillion added in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010. And the CBO now projects a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year. That means the federal government will borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Bankruptcies loom for many states faced with unfunded public pension liabilities; strong-arm demands for bailouts by unions will threaten Democrats’ credibility. Sixty-eight percent of likely voters already express a preference for smaller government and lower taxes. Talk of more federal spending and the potential for state bankruptcies will increase voter anxiety. As the GOP educates voters about what the exploding debt burden means for future generations, its cost-cutting measures and messaging will resonate.

Article - McKinnon Obama 2012 Tom Williams / Getty Images

4. Voters Aren’t Better Off

In 1980, President Ronald Reagan famously asked: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The answer for many is “no,” with higher unemployment, more debt, record-high home foreclosures, and another housing dip on the way. The long road to economic recovery will continue to frustrate voters. And weekly reminders of rising prices at the gas pump and grocery store, where it hurts most, may cost Obama the election.

5. Ailing Health Care

• Mark McKinnon: 12 Reasons Obama Wins in 2012If “Obamacare” was historic legislation, so too was the House vote to repeal it. Though repeal today may be moot as Senate passage and a presidential veto are unlikely, as the true bottom line becomes known, in terms of increased costs, decreased access to care, and increased government controls, health care once again will be a decisive campaign issue. Efforts to dismantle or defund Obamacare will continue for the next two years. And as the public listens more to the credible Rep. Paul Ryan, the president will be on the defensive daily.

6. Tea Party Momentum

The momentum will not stop. With a majority voice and a mandate, GOP House members, and the increasingly popular Speaker John Boehner, are making all the right moves, with humility and focus on the most important issues: the economy and health care. Fired up by victories in the historic midterm elections, Tea Party, conservative, older, and right-leaning moderate voters will turn out in droves in 2012, challenging the Democrats’ ground game. With 33 Senate seats (23 of which are now held by Democrats), 435 House seats, 11 governorships, and perhaps the ultimate fate of Obamacare still on the line, all politics is turnout.

7. Obama’s Transparency Problem

If House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is effective in questioning mismanagement and opacity in the administration, Team Obama will be forced off-message as the public is reminded daily of the president’s one-time promises of transparency. A bill introduced on the first day of this session that seeks to cut off funding to 39 “czars” appointed without congressional approval may also find its way to the light of day on Issa’s desk. And sunshine tends to disinfect.

8. Congressional Districts Reapportioned

With the reapportionment of congressional districts from the 2010 Census, and with Republican control of more governorships and state legislatures, Obama’s electoral road to reelection is not without a few bumps. Eight states gained at least one congressional district; five of those are traditionally red states, including Texas, which gained four seats. Six of the 10 states to lose a district are blue. And once reliable Democratic states voted Republican in the 2010 midterms. While Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post shows how Obama could survive the challenge, Karl Rove builds a case for the president falling 67 short of what he needs to remain in the White House.

9. The Wars Aren’t Over

President Obama gets credit for continuing George W. Bush’s strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan. And though the public grows weary, the anti-war movement is now strangely silent. The number of voters who believe the terrorists are winning is at its highest level in over three years, and voters continue to believe Obama’s ideas on foreign policy don’t quite match their own. Those concerns, along with growing international threats from Iran, and our increasing economic dependence on China, may push votes into the R column.

10. What About Overregulation?

By moderating his anti-business rhetoric, selecting William Daley of JPMorgan Chase as his new chief of staff, and naming General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the chair of the White House’s new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Obama is sending signals of the administration’s shift toward the center. But without real changes to the overregulation strangling business growth, those signals may be seen as all smoke, no fire. And if private-sector job growth does not improve, voters may punish Obama at the polls.

11. Republicans Are More Trusted

The country yearns for an optimistic leader who believes in America, and who is willing to make hard choices to save future generations from the burden of our mistakes. Many thought that was Obama’s promise. No matter how it may be spun, the midterm elections were a referendum on the president’s performance and platform. And Republicans are now more trusted on all the top issues, including the economy, taxes, and health care.

12. The Vision Thing

Though President Obama has matched his highest job approval rating in more than a year, he is under 50 percent when it comes to the economy, viewed by the public as the highest priority. Trust in his ability to handle health care has dropped to a new low. And only 37 percent of independents would vote to re-elect Obama if the election were held today. A $1 billion campaign fund may not be enough if the GOP’s “Candidate X” presents a compelling and distinctly different narrative, a better vision for tomorrow.

I know we predicted Republican Senate control in 2010. Republicans did gain seven seats and came within four of winning control. Razor thin defeats in Colorado and Washington and unexpected thrashings in Nevada and West Virginia proved us wrong.

But this time – honest – we are going to win!

The battlegrounds in 2012 are a lot more red and less blue than in 2010. If we switch seats in North Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and Montana – red states all – we get control by 52-48.

And the way 2012 is shaping up, Republican control is more and more likely.

Start with retirements. Kent Conrad, the North Dakota liberal twin of retired Byron Dorgan, has announced that he won’t run again. That seat is a sure GOP pickup.

Jim Webb (D-Va) has raised very little money, speaks with ambivalence about Obama’s programs, and has not yet decided whether to run. George Allen’s announced challenge to his re-election should cool him off even further and he’ll probably drop out. Not a sure pickup but, if the Republican Party nominates Allen — and not some later day Christine O’Donnell – we should be all right.

Herbert Kohl, the Wisconsin Democratic octogenarian, may also not run. He hasn’t raised money but did lend his campaign $1 million to fill up his bank account. But loans can be repaid. Kohl may well retire. Defeated Democratic Senator Russ Feingold may challenge him in a primary, hastening his exit. Not a sure pickup, but in a state which went so heavily Republican in 2010 (the GOP captured the governorship, both houses of the legislature, a Senate seat, and more House members) it’s a likely Republican gain.

The Nelsons (Bill of Florida and Ben of Nebraska) both face tough challenges from strong candidates in red states. Who knows if they will really run? Ben Nelson has to have the model of Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln firmly in his mind. He needs to quit before he gets thrown out.

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), a former client, may not run again especially since his state lurched sharply to the right in 2010.

And, in Montana, Democrat John Tester, who won by less than one point in 2006, is an easy target in a very red state.

So rate North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia, Montana as very likely Republican victories.

But we won’t stop there. Wisconsin – against either Kohl or Feingold – is a good pickup prospect. Bob Casey (D-Pa) can be beaten as can Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). Bill Nelson (D-Fla) probably won’t win again and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) will likely lose to former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman. And Republicans have a good shot against Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich).

Joe Manchin (D-WV) faces mounting scandals and his failure to make good on his promise to vote like a Republican may cost him his seat. And Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the single sleaziest member of the Senate, may face a challenge in a state whose GOP is animated by its Republican governor Chris Christie.

Morris says: "If we switch seats in North Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, and Montana – red states all – we get control by 52-48.

But he went on to mention 8 others, all plausible: Wisconsin, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, West Virginia and New Jersey.

He didn't want to say it but in a sweep that makes 60. Morris is about right for today, but the momentum it seems is going to turn one way or the other from here.

I called for clarity and 100% of R's in the Senate voted for repeal and 100% of D's voted against repeal of a bill twice (out of 4 tries) declared unconstitutional. (Both sides read the forum?) Differences don't get much clearer.

Something like 8 times the experience that candidate Obama had. Served both in the House and Senate. Knocked off (electorally) a sitting Senate Majority Leader. Married to his (first) wife. Never socialized medicine.

I suppose Huntsman might be too moderate for some on this forum, but I guess that is where my beliefs stand. And I think the man has integrity. Sadly missing among many politicians today.Plus I think he is electable.

Ambassador Huntsman has an interesting life story. Born to a self-made billionaire father, Jon Jr. dropped out of high school to play in a rock and roll band. He later did go to college, earning a degree at the University of Pennsylvania after attending the University of Utah for a time. He did missionary work in Taiwan and speaks fluent Mandarin. He served in both the Reagan and Bush-41 administrations. His business background in the Huntsman Corporation as an executuve, and later as well with the Huntsman Cancer Foundation.

In 2004, Jon Hunstman Jr. was elected as governor of the State of Utah by a fair margin, 57%. He was re-elected in 2008 by a whopping 77%. During his term in office, Utah was named the best managed state by the Pew Center. Many were already eyeing him for a presidential run then, which is one reason why Barack Obama offered him the job to be Ambassador to China. Get him out of the country and out of the way.

But his service as ambassador has not always been so cooperative. Huntsman had envisioned himself as taking a lead role in policy and affairs with China and Asia in general. But time and time again, Obama has used others, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to function as ‘point-man’ in dealing with China. Huntsman has been becoming more vocally critical of the Obama administration’s Asia policies. A clear sign of dissatisfaction and political ambition.

As governor, Huntsman demonstrated political savvy, walking the line between moderate and Conservative ideology. Huntsman reduced taxes, reformed government, and sided firmly with those opposed to abortion, gun control and same-sex marriage. He also advocated energy efficiency and raised concerns on proposals to store nuclear waste in Utah.

So keep your eye on Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. as the presidential field begins to take shape this year. He has a thick dossier for economic, executive and international skill sets. He and his lovely wife, Mary Kaye, have seven children, two of which are adopted (one from China and one from India). Huntsman is smart, good-looking and plays a mean piano I hear. Just the sort who could be viewed with a wide base for popularity in the 2012 presidential campaign.

JDN, Great post. Now can I ask it the other way, if Republicans can come up with a good candidate, still what would motivate you want to vote against Pres. Obama?

Hmmm, if Huntsman runs, I'll vote for him.

And I hear your former governor Tim Pawlenty is pretty good; but to be honest I don't know much about him. Crist might be interesting and I'ld consider Jeb Bush.But as GM said, "Mittens Romney and Newt, I find them smart and capable and utterly untrustworthy." And I'm not a Huckabee fan.

But I'ld vote for the dog catcher before Palin. I didn't like Bush, but I would have voted for McCain, in spite of his years if he had chosen a different VP.

JDN, That was good but what I was trying to draw out was what about Obama's governance gives you inclination to vote against him, if an acceptable alternative emerges. -----

Cap and trade, and 'smart growth' advocacy were concerns that your good post about his conservatism made me forget about Huntsman.

On the positive side, what caught my attention to Huntsman was his leadership on CNG in cars. Much of the population of Utah is in a valley where the air gets trapped in by a wall of mountains. For each cloud to get through, it must first drop its weight - to the tune of 500 inches/yr. of snow at Alta. CNG (compressed natural gas) burns much cleaner, 20-25% less CO2 is emitted, better cost and mostly north American origins. (Hardly should need subsidizing) Great idea with a cart before the horse problem - if there are no stations, there are no vehicle sales. Leadership made sense and the cause is a good one, but huge subsidies to the tune of getting other taxpayers to buy a big part of your ride does not.

Cap and trade is up there with Romney care in importance. With the Climate gate exposure being only a year or so old and plenty of new reports to refute alarmist urgency, people like Newt and Huntsman may get a chance to reconsider proposals to turn our economy upside down.

'Smart growth' is an innocent sounding phrase meaning that elitist leaders know better where your family should live than you freedom seekers do. Utah has unique geography for some justification, but the nationwide movement is the antithesis to conservative values or a red state map. Often liberal Utopians want us all to live in high density near light rail stations that they will locate for us at the mercy of government services provided, instead of further out, on our own, in Republican 'xurbs' where you can have a driveway, a yard and a distance to your nearest neighbor, not a shared wall. I don't mean a yard with one chair in the shade of a high rise, I mean room to hit a pitching wedge, set up a soccer game, have a horse if you want, in our case a boat, a dock and a skating rink. Perhaps not a national issue, but his affinity to the cause of the moment could be an indicator of governing philosophy.

GM, That youtube is quite revealing. Side note is that we hear the same voice before he learned the cadence that makes him sound like... Obama impersonators.

FYI to the CiC, White executives out in suburbs actually do pay taxers that pay for inner city youth, even in the dark ages of 1995. It is the other way around. Fathers and mothers of the poorest inner city youth that aren't paying for the white executives kids to go to school - or for their own. Or paying for their own housing, food or healthcare. The wealthy who wouldn't pay their fair share he put in the cabinet.

The theme of inner city community organizing was welfare advocacy and welfare rights, not self sufficiency or individual excellence. If you succeed, then he cuts you down - or does that depend on your race.

The healthcare law is 2000 pages about redistributionism and zero pages about new surgical procedures or life saving drug advancement.

I like what JDN wrote about creativity and entrepreneurship. That is how you judge tax rates, regulating schemes and welfare dependency. Do the policies in total leave the people across the whole spectrum wanting to innovate, create, build something, start something, risk, borrow, invest, hire, expand etc, etc or more like now - fight with each other and mostly sit on the sidelines and argue over who gets what. The answer at this point in time is mostly negative.

Wow. I will be happy to have him lead this country. Sharing our values is one thing, but choose for President the one who best articulates them.

On Meet the Press he was soft spoken and humble, so they showed a video of his passion at the rallies making a strong claim about the administration. West calmly stood by what he said and gave specifics to demonstrate that it was true.

Allen West is President Obama's worst nightmare. He won't walk into a Presidential debate unsure about what he believes or how to express it. Let's see the one with the community background or ordinary Republicans question his experience or readiness to serve and to lead, 20 years in the U.S. Army he served in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was battalion commander for the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and in Afghanistan, where he trained Afghan officers to take on the responsibility of securing their own country.

2 Masters degrees I see, West is 'an avid distance runner, a PADI Master certified SCUBA diver, motorcyclist, ...His wife, Angela, holds an MBA and PhD. and works as a financial planner.'

So many points in the speech (the constitution is a restraining order is against big government) I hate to single any out, but West picked up the point that cash for clunkers is a symbol of our current, failed leadership (famous people read this forum).

Allen West, Take your own advice, "the time is now". Good leaders don't come around very often.

It is a little early but I am going to make my 2012 prediction right here, right now.

There will be fewer women fainting in the front rows of Obama rallies in 2012. Mark my words, you heard it here first.

------

Both West and Cain are amazing black conservatives. Just from what I saw, West spoke out very strongly but with carefully chosen words that he can back up and stand by. Cain has an amazing business background and a powerful presence at the podium. Like others in talk radio though, he left himself with a headline less impressive than his speech: 'Cain says we are ruled by stupid people'. That falls into the trap CCP describes, the media ready to chew up a very successful man on one inartful slogan. It is our job to make the case that the opponents are wrong on their policies, not stupid.

Actually he did face court martial. And he did resign immediately thereafter...They let him keep his pension. He was lucky.

While I have the upmost respect for our fighting men, and I agree they require leadershipand decision making in the field it's hardly real world experience unless you rise to a higher level. A Lt. Col. is like a Assistant VP in a large corporation. A battalion is the smallest unit capable of independent actionhaving about 500 - 1200 men. Hardly qualifications to to run a country.

Worse, unlike the AVP who must achieve his position on merit, as an Officer, many make Lt. Col. in 16-20 years just on longevity alone; hardly indicative of the Army's recognizingthat he had outstanding talent other than putting in his years of service until full retirement after 20 years. And sorry, simply serving in the military, while honorable, does not necessarily make onea leader or a capable manager outside of the army. Frankly, I think many officers/military people have trouble transitioning into civilian life; the skills are different.

Also, he's a freshman congressman; still wet never having held any political office before. That's experience? Like it or not, being a politician requires different talents than a field military officer.

But the key is that you "Absolutely" think he can be elected on a national platform. And that America will vote for him.

This is the guy you want the Republican's to run in a national election? Really?

Actually he did face court martial. And he did resign immediately thereafter...They let him keep his pension. He was lucky.An Article 32 hearing isn't a court martial. Yeah, in combat, sometimes hard choices have to be made. He did the right thing, IMHO. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, JDN.

Actually, I said he was facing court martial. An article 32 hearing is a preliminary hearing. They gave him a break; he offered to resign and so they let him. He had no future in the military.

"Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the 4th Infantry's top general in Tikrit, could have rejected the recommendation and ordered a court martial. If he were to be found guilty at a court martial of the two articles against him, West could have faced 11 years in prison, a military prosecutor told CNN."

As for doing the right thing, you are right; I don't know the answer to that. But his superiors disagreed with his actions and they do understand.

But more important, I'm still waiting to hear why his "experience" qualifies him to be President?

He led soldiers, both in peacetime and in war. He didn't get to his rank coasting along on white guilt, (unlike someone placed as editor of Harvard Law Review with no actual writing required) he got it by performance.

West knew the potential costs involved, the safe thing would have been for him to stay inside the wire. If he lost some troops to an ambush, he could easily compose letters to the families and work towards his next promotion. He chose to sacrifice his career in trade for the lives and limbs of his troops.

JDN: "...waiting to hear why his "experience" qualifies him to be President?"

I answered that from my point of view and I would like to elaborate on my answer. First though to help frame my answer, may I ask you what experience is required to be qualified?

George H.W. Bush was the resume President, served in congress, was Ambassador to China. Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the UN, served 2 terms as VP, you don't get much closer to CiC than that. He won one landslide running for 'Reagan's 3rd term'. Broke with Reagan policies and on his own he lost to the Governor of Arkansas.

The other with that level of experience was Walter Mondale, 1984. He served in the army, was elected state attorney general, served 12 years in the senate in the Hubert Humphrey seat, was Vice President of the United States (later was Ambassador to Japan) lost all 49 states other than his home state in 1984, took Wellstone's place in 2002, lost his home state becoming the first and only person in history to lose in all 50 states.

Reagan was a large state governor two terms, W. Bush the same, Clinton a two term (non-continuous) smaller state governor and Carter a one term governor.

Saving Obama for the comparison with Allen West or whoever will run against him.

I would add that a) Reagan understood being in the public eye due to his acting career; andb) There is perhaps no better preparation for the socializing, schmoozing, politicking, lying, and backstabbing of Washington than being President of the Screen Actors Guild.

Morris often gets outside of his true lane of expertise, but here he is back in it, dead center:

So what happens if the cuts proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., prove unacceptable to the Senate and the president? What if there is no compromise? What if nobody gives in?

A budget deadlock, played out over months, will doom President Obama and assure his defeat. But an easily won compromise will help him get re-elected.

The central question in Obama's bid for a second term is: Will the issues that doomed his party in 2010 still be the key questions in 2012? If they are, we already know how the election will come out. If they are not, Obama can win.

When the president says he does not "want to re-fight the battles of the past two years," he means that he embraces this reality. He doesn't want Obamacare, high spending, huge deficits, cap and trade, card check and the like to be the items of discussion in the 2012 election.

But he has failed to put forward a compelling agenda for the next two years. That was the essential defect of his State of the Union speech. Nobody is going to storm any barricades for high-speed rail and more R&D spending.

If the Republicans hold firm in demanding huge spending cuts and Obama does not give in, the question of whether or not to cut spending will dominate the nation's political discourse for months on end and will spill over into the 2012 election.

To assure that it will, the Republicans should hold firm to their budget spending cuts without surrender or compromise. If necessary, it is OK to vote a few very short term continuing resolutions to keep the government open for a few weeks at a time, always keeping on the pressure.

hen the debt limit vote comes up, they should refuse to allow an increase without huge cuts in spending. If the debt limit deadline passes, they should force the administration to scramble to cobble together enough money to operate for weeks at a time.

If Obama offers a half a loaf, the GOP should spurn it for weeks and months. Then, rather than actually shut down the government, let them accept some variant of their proposed cuts but only give in return a few more weeks time, at which point the issue will be re-litigated. Don't go for Armageddon. Just keep fighting the battle.

Same with the debt limit. Extend it for a few hundred billion dollars and then go back for more cuts in return for a further extension. Make Obama pay for each continuing resolution and each debt limit hike with more cuts to spending.

Always avoid cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Save those for after 2012. For now, focus on Medicaid block granting and discretionary spending (including some modest cuts in defense).

Like a guerilla army, never go to a shutdown (a general engagement), but keep coming up with cuts, compromising, letting the government stay open for a few more weeks, letting the debt limit rise a few hundred billion, and then come back for more cuts and repeat the cycle.

And don't just demand spending cuts. Go for defunding of Obamacare, blocking the EPA from carbon taxation and regulation, a ban on card check unionization, and constraints on the FCC's regulation of the Internet and talk radio. Put those items on the table each time, each session.

Every time the issues come up, every time the cuts are litigated, Obama's efforts to appear to be a centrist will be frustrated. Time and again, he will have to oppose spending cuts. Over and over, he will come across as the liberal he is, battling for each dime and opposing any defunding.

Obama's campaign strategy has two elements: Change the subject from the 09-10 agenda, and move to the center. A tough, determined Republican budget offensive, embracing all these elements and fought in this guerilla style, will frustrate both and lead to his defeat.

"A tough, determined Republican budget offensive, embracing all these elements and fought in this guerilla style, will frustrate both and lead to his defeat."

With walking the fine line not to appear like they are "shutting down" government and avoiding the cruetly label,"you are throwing people onto bread lines""you are depriving children of an education""you are denying health care to the poor"

Notice the libs are just drooling at the chops trying to get the Republicans to say they need to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and SS!

They can't wait, the pols and the MSM to get Boehner saying this. They clearly have the jornolist onslaught just ready to hit every media outlet with a back lash and every senior, poor person, student teacher, mnority, Latino and every one else waiting to give their sob story on SoloDADs and ODonnels, and Mr. Ed's shows.

Crafty posted before some concerns about Haley Barbour and possible past links to racism.

Last night Chris Matthews appeared to be aroused by the accusation that Haley Barbour "refused" to denounce an attempt to have the state in Mississippi sponser a Nathan Bedford Forrest license plate. Remember this guy was not only a Confederate army officer, but the first Grand Wizzard of the KKK.

Barber did come out and say the law will never pass but would not criticize the Sons of the Confederates who sponsored it.

Personally, I think it very reasonable Blacks would be outraged. I would be too. It remains to be seen if Barbour comes out and denounces this but if he doesn't that is it for me. I would never vote for this guy if he can't/won't acknoweldge how wrong this proposal is. Perhaps I am missing something taken out of context. Perhaps I am just a damn Yankee but I am sick and tired of Southerners making the Confederacy about State's rights. It was about Slavery. Let's leave it in the past. Remember it for what it was and what it means now and stop playing sentimental crap with Gone With The Wind. Its over -thank God.

As a matter of fact, Ed the dead, and Lawrence OF o'donnell and Chris hard on Matthews have been going wild making every link of Clarence with the Coke-Cola "brothers".They claim he should have recused himself from a case since he apparently met with them and may have received gratuities. It (at lest they claim) the appearance of a conflict of interests. They are also going hog wild trying to get him on his wife's policital activities.

However,

The Left, of course, has always been outraged by a Black conservative on the Court. Now more than ever they are trying to destroy him. Naturally so their front man, the One, could replace him and tip the balance in the Progressive's favor.

I usually watch for short periods of time. Naturally after at most 10 minutes I get disgusted and switch to another station.

One could simply say that this is the left version of Beck going after (exposing in my view) links between Soros and every single progressive movement in the World. Which by the way seems to be true. Soros' fingerprints are showing up on everything. What with seventy* (*Wikipedia) - count them - progressive front (whoops, I mean "philanthropic"), and investment vehicles, tax write off, etc. organizations.